I will write these examples as a person making a proposal to the
public which might trigger a veto.
Move the ownership into a private corporation (SUA LLC) with a board
of directors.
Use the domain name now with a site license of CCSA, or CCSANC.
---
If you wish to preserve a veto then it is also important to be very
clear about the path you are 'requiring' for the future. Documenting
this is probably more important than preserving a veto as only then
will be sure you are having a discussion about positive action.
A
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Thomas von der Elbe
<ThomasvonderElbe at gmx.de> wrote:
> Michael Allan wrote:
>> "The job of the caretakers is to guard the domain name against misuse.
> The only feasible means of guarding it (I think) is a veto:
>http://u.zelea.com:8080/v/w/Diff?b=3324&a=3342>> What do you think?"
>> You want to give the caretakers a veto concerning all issues of domain-ownership. But only during the time before the transfer of the domain to the public. Right?
>> I imagine this does not sound very trustworthy to the public. They might think: "Ah well, just before we reach the 1000 votes for new ownership-conditions a caretaker comes along and pulls out his veto ...! No, thanks!"
>> Please describe a case, where such a veto would be of worth for a caretaker. I think, if we find good ownership-conditions, we dont need a veto altogether. The caretakers would just stick to it no matter what.
>> Thomas
> --
> GMX DSL: Internet-, Telefon- und Handy-Flat ab 19,99 EUR/mtl.
> Bis zu 150 EUR Startguthaben inklusive! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl>> _______________________________________________
> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
>http://www.metagovernment.org/> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org> Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org>